Alaska's Participation in the Interstate Compact for Probation and Parole Item Type Report Authors Schafer, N. E.; Wenderoff, Leslie; Mirc, Peter Citation Schafer, N.E.; Wenderoff, Leslie; & Mirc, Peter. (1987). Alaska's Participation in the Interstate Compact for Probation and Parole. Report prepared for the Alaska Division of Probation and Parole. Anchorage: Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage. Publisher Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage Download date 03/10/2021 18:56:13 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/11122/10722 Scholarworks@UA — UAA Justice Center 1987 Alaska's Participation in the Interstate Compact for Probation and Parole N.E. Schafer, Leslie Wenderoff, & Peter Mirc Suggested citation Schafer, N.E.; Wenderoff, Leslie; & Mirc, Peter. (1987). Alaska's Participation in the Interstate Compact for Probation and Parole. Report prepared for the Alaska Division of Probation and Parole. Anchorage: Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage. Summary The Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Parolees and Probationers is an agreement whereby one state agrees to provide supervision for offenders on community release from other states. Participants in the interstate compact agree that any state will accept supervision of a parolee or probationer providing the offender has proper residence either as a resident of that state or with family, and that he/she is able to find employment. Major increases in Alaska's prison population over the past decade have been accompanied by corresponding increases in the number of persons under probation/parole supervision and in the caseloads of individual probation officers. Using a master listing of all persons under the jurisdiction of the Alaska Department of Corrections from 1976 to 1983, the Justice Center at University of Alaska Anchorage made a preliminary assessment of the impact on Alaska of participation in the Interstate Compact. From 1976 to 1983, Alaska processed 1,551 offenders through the Interstate Compact, of whom 999 were received for supervision from other states (64.4% of the total) and 552 (35.6%) were sent to other states. Based on this data, the interstate compact has not yet been an equitable arrangement for any city in Alaska: each city has seen a greater number of incoming than of outgoing transfers. UAA is an AA/EO employer and educational institution and prohibits illegal discrimination against any individual: www.alaska.edu/titleIXcompliance/nondiscrimination. ALASKA'S PARTICIPATION IN THE INTERSTATE COMPACT FOR PROBATION AND PAROLE A Report to the Alaska Division of Probation and Parole Prepared by N. E. Schafer Assistant Professor School of Justice Leslie Wenderoff Graduate Researcher School of Justice Peter Mire Division of Probation Alaska Department of Corrections Justice Center University of Alaska Anchorage JC# 8706 1987 INTRODUCTION The interstate compact for the supervision of parolees and probationers is an agreement whereby one state agrees to provide supervision for offenders on community release from other states. The compact was initiated as a result of the federal Crime Control Consent Act of 1934. This Act permitted two or more states to enter into agreements for crime prevention. In recognition of the mobility of the American population, of the difficulties of maintaining supervision of offenders across state lines and of the need for formal arrangements to monitor offend­ ers, the interstate commission on crime drafted the compact which was signed by twenty-five states in 1937. Participants in the interstate compact agree that any state will accept supervision of a parolee or probationer providing the offender has proper residence either as a resident of that state or with family, and that he/she is able to find employment. If these conditions are not met, the receiving state can choose not to accept the offender. The supervising, or receiving, state must use the same standards of supervision for interstate cases as it does for its own parolees and probationers. The sentencing state may recall a probationer or parolee being supervised under the compact at any time without formali­ ties. Before leaving the sentencing state the parolee or proba­ tioner signs a waiver of extradition ( Council of State Governments, 1978). Participation in the compact demonstrates a willingness on -1- the part of the receiving state to supervise probationers and parolees who were originally residents of the state, or who have support networks in the state, or who may be seeking a "new life." It is assumed that the flow of offenders into and out of any given state will be equitable over time, i.e., that the total number of offenders received for supervision will be approxi­ mately equal to the total number sent elsewhere. l If this assumption should prove false there are serious implications for supervision caseloads in states which receive more offenders than they send. Numbers in and out are only gross measures of exchange equity. A state may send out more offenders than it receives, but if most of those it sends have committed minor property crimes while most of those it receives have committed crimes against persons a different definition of equity may be required. Major increases in Alaska's prison population have been accompanied by corresponding increases in the number of persons under probation/parole supervision. Between 1976 and 1986 the number of offenders under community supervision by the division of probation rose from an annualized figure of 1010 to 2153 (Department of Corrections Annual Report). This dramatic growth in the total population has resulted in proportional increases in the caseloads of individual probation officers. A perception among many officers that there has been an increase in the number of offenders requiring supervision under the interstate compact led to an interest in assessing the impact upon average caseloads of participation in the compact. -2- While supervision of incoming offenders requires a long-term commitment and regular demands on the probation officer's time, it should be noted that the processing of outgoing offenders requires time and effort as well and must be considered in a detailed impact assessment. Clearly a number of factors must be considred in an assess­ ment of Alaska's involvement in the Interstate Compact. This preliminary assessment was hampered by the lack of adequate historical data. No records of interstate transactions have been kept by either the Department of Corrections or its former parent agency, Health and Social Services. Because a major change in computer information systems was undertaken in 1984, much needed information from prior years is no longer retrievable. Fortunately, a printout of all persons under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections prior to 1983 was available for this research. The data were maintained for case management pur- poses and did not include information which we consider crucial to a thorough assessment of the impact of the state's participa­ tion in the interstate compact. Nevertheless, this was the only information available and it was used to draw some preliminary conclusions which were based on aggregate numbers and could not, for the most part, be refined. The information available included state of original jurisdiction (sending state), destina­ tion (receiving state), date of birth, date supervision ends, sex, age, race, and status (probation or parole). Data on interstate transfers were extracted from the printout -3- and computer processed. Several pertinent questions could not be answered by the available data. Intake date and instant offense were not available and are essential for a detailed impact study. If intake date were known, we would be able to determine the length of supervision by subtracting from the supervision end date. Without knowing the length of supervision for each offender under the compact we were unable to get an accurate pic­ ture of the changes in interstate caseloads on an annual basis. Length of supervision is also a factor in determining the case­ load of the Division of Probation. Knowing the instant offense for each case processed would give a more refined picture of the impact on caseloads. Persons under supervision are designated minimum, medium, or maximum and the amount of time devoted to the probationer/parolee varies according to the designation. Since offense behavior plays an important role in risk designation, it would be useful to have this information. Offense also is important in assessing com- munity risk. RESEARCH RESULTS During the seven years between 1975 and 1984 Alaska processed 1551 offenders through the Interstate Compact; 999 were received for supervision (64.4% of the total) and 552 (35.6%) were sent to other states. It is significant that 45% more offenders entered the state than left it. An effort was made to compare this figure with the total field supervision cases for the same years but similar data was -4- not maintained. Although aggregate annual case load data for these years is available from the Department of Corrections there is no way to break this information into a count of individuals. The data collected for the present study involved information on 1551 individuals. Since length of supervision varies from two years to as many as twenty, the yearly overlap of individuals on the annualized case load is considerable. At the same time the case management information for the study did not contain intake dates so annualized case loads could not be measured. Annualized caseload information is collected by the Department of Corrections. The count is made on a specific cen- sus date and, if there is concern about the impact of the state's Interstate Compact caseload, compact supervisees could be counted on the same date and records kept of these as a percentage of the total. The researchers expected that the outgoing transfers would tend to be on parole rather than on probation. A current investigation of case records seemed to indicate that a substan­ tial number of state offenders who were incarcerated in federal prisons seemed to choose to be on parole in the states where they had been incarcerated.